Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure how that makes it nurture though. It's actualized by environment, but the desire is there by nature.

[OngBonga]

It's nurtue precisely because it's a reaction to a change in environment.

[OngBonga]

The "desire" is only there in the form of dopamine.

[OngBonga]

It's not like the "desire" to suck your dear Mother's nipple, or the "desire" to eat and breathe. It's a desire to replicate happiness.

[wufwugy]

I don't think you can describe nurture that simply.

What if you wrote a program that favors either red or blue but only after certain inputs will that preference for one or the other be actualized? You can say the favor is nurture and you can say it's nature.

If we're going with your description of nurture then what isn't nurture?

[wufwugy]

It's not like the "desire" to suck your dear Mother's nipple, or the "desire" to eat and breathe. It's a desire to replicate happiness.

there is probalby both involved. the desire to consume a thing that brings pleasure is very natural

[OngBonga]

If we're going with your description of nurture then what isn't nurture?

If I could answer this question in detail, I'd be doing better than psychologists.

[OngBonga]

Hunger isn't nurture. You don't "learn" to be hungry.

[spoonitnow]

It's not like the "desire" to suck your dear Mother's nipple, or the "desire" to eat and breathe. It's a desire to replicate happiness.

Just more of a "this is neat" than joining in on this particular discussion, but plenty of babies are born without the innate ability to suck, and that has to be taught to them in special ways (or they pretty much just die).

Hunger isn't nurture. You don't "learn" to be hungry.

This can be learned. You can also learn to not feel hunger.

To chime in on the nurture vs nature debate, the influences of both sides are drastically underestimated to the point that there are very few things that aren't influenced heavily by both.

[OngBonga]

Just more of a "this is neat" than joining in on this particular discussion, but plenty of babies are born without the innate ability to suck, and that has to be taught to them in special ways (or they pretty much just die).

I'd be curious to know how many "plenty" is in % terms. This is actually very interesting. One possible explanation is evolution - perhaps it's no longer seen as essential pre-birth knowledge since it can be taught quickly, and instead there is a natural focus on a different area of mental development in the womb. idk, this is stoned bollocks, but hunger in infants is as pure instinct as I can think when it comes to humans.

To chime in on the nurture vs nature debate, the influences of both sides are drastically underestimated to the point that there are very few things that aren't influenced heavily by both.

Yeah this is going to be absolutely the case. Furthermore, one can't really know what is already programmed into a human, and what is learned subconciously during fetal development. It's a messy topic at best.

[OngBonga]

Any of you Yanks watch your asses handed to you on a plate by the Scots in the rugby world cup?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Any of you Yanks watch your asses handed to you on a plate by the Scots in the rugby world cup?

I think, for once, I speak for all of us when I say, "No. lol."

[OngBonga]

I know rugby is not very big in USA. I was watching the game, wondering how brutal you Yanks find it. I never watch your national game of throwball, so it's near impossible for me to compare the two. All I know is that in throwball, they're all padded up to fuck.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It is well documented that the addition of padding has had a worsening effect on the severity of injuries in the game. The frequency of injuries is somewhat contested.

The more padding, the more force you can deliver w/o injuring yourself (most of the time). When an injury actually occurs, the amount of force that is involved is significantly higher, and the amount of damage is amplified.

Besides, I think Americans get our brutal sports fix through MMA and similar. I'm not really sure why rugby isn't more popular here. I think it's a popular and competitive sport among the more wealthy of private schools. Perhaps it's this view that it's somehow an elitist activity plays a role. There's a similar disinterest in tennis and golf, to a lesser extent.

(Just talking here, no data to back anything up.)

[spoonitnow]

Any of you Yanks watch your asses handed to you on a plate by the Scots in the rugby world cup?

I'm being 100% honest when I say that I had no idea that we even had a team.

[OngBonga]

Strange, it's hardly an elitist game here. The elites are too wealthy to be in the required physical shape that rugby demands. It appeals more to the working class of Wales, hence their status as a world class rugby nation.

The USA team aren't actually too bad. They gave the Scots a game for the first half, and the Scots can play rugby. If it was a serious sport there, you'd be a serious team.

[wufwugy]

rugby is "too violent" to have gotten popular in the US over the last few decades. the irony is that our attempts to de-violentize sports, have made them more dangerous (football, boxing).

[OngBonga]

Too viloent for USA? Holy fuck that's funny, considering the movies and computer games that you lot produce.

[OngBonga]

Rugby isn't viloent in the remotest. It's brutal. There's a big difference. These people aren't trying to hurt one another, in fact when they do hurt someone they are usually very quick to comfort them and check they're ok. It's highly competetive, but it's not viloent in the context that I'd use that word.

[wufwugy]

it's the appearance of violence. consider the audience and the medium. most americans are babies about violence. it's about hiding the eyes of the children from the raw. europe doesnt have as much of that.

[wufwugy]

man do i despise victim culture

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...erican-manhood

[wufwugy]

one thing i dislike about the article is how he says in the story he told that his response to hit the other kid was wrong. hold on a second here, if the kid deserved it, then hitting him was actually right. this "such n such confrontational behavior is ALWAYS wrong" mindset we have is itself a product of the mindset that creates the victim culture. people need to start standing up and saying that "being mean" isn't always wrong.

the world is a better place when people are taught that when they run their mouths, they get hit.

[spoonitnow]

one thing i dislike about the article is how he says in the story he told that his response to hit the other kid was wrong. hold on a second here, if the kid deserved it, then hitting him was actually right. this "such n such confrontational behavior is ALWAYS wrong" mindset we have is itself a product of the mindset that creates the victim culture. people need to start standing up and saying that "being mean" isn't always wrong.

the world is a better place when people are taught that when they run their mouths, they get hit.

Thank you. Jesus fucking Christ this like 92383838 times over.

[MadMojoMonkey]

the world is a better place when people are taught that when they run their mouths, they get hit.

You mean wufwugy actually believes that he's literally "asking for it" and yet he just never stops?

That commitment to masochism that is more subtle than I suspected.

Somebody just hit wufwugy already!

[wufwugy]

ive probably never run my mouth in my life

[OngBonga]

I was a right fucking gobshite when I was a kid. Got a slap off my teacher once. Yes I derserved it.

[aubreymcfate]

hey ong, are you familiar with extrawelt? if no check them out, i think you might like them. germans r kool. saw them live at this festival thingy recently (along with tipper and glitch mob and nicolas jaar, really good line up) and it was awesome.

the thing i dislike most about victim culture is the way it dictates the way all people should speak to each other to avoid any offense. promoting the desire to be tactful and respectful and decent to one another is great, but the whole sjw movement slips into fascism so quickly. i usually find that the hardcore sjw types have no real understanding of other humans -- how people from all different walks of life talk/perceive/interact differently. they apply these static rules to everyone around them and completely ignore how complex human beings really are. they just don't understand other people, don't know how to talk to them, and don't understand why everyone else can't communicate on their set of rigid terms. hence retard twitter war after twitter war featuring confused person vs. rabid psycho

i'm fascinated by people so it feels like an affront to the awesome spectacle of humanity when i see these people that try to dilute anything interesting out of life with their shitty blanket rules on how to interact, or constantly seeking offense. if i was to be offended by anything i could possibly be offended by and avoided anyone that ever said anything "problematic" i'd miss out on some of the most eccentric, interesting, and illuminating social situations. i mean for fuck's sake, sometimes you just have to enjoy the show.

[spoonitnow]

Once again, despite her disability, aubreymcfate says a lot of reasonable things all at once.

[OngBonga]

hey ong, are you familiar with extrawelt? if no check them out, i think you might like them. germans r kool. saw them live at this festival thingy recently (along with tipper and glitch mob and nicolas jaar, really good line up) and it was awesome.

This sounds German. It's good, I like it. Very minimal. Thanks for this! Not as good as Tipper though, I'm very jealous you saw him.

I've been listening to Greek dub of recent, check those guys out. Pretty much everything I've clicked of theirs is superb.

This week I have mostly been listening to Balkan swing, and iconic UK punk.

That last tune makes me want to shout!

[MadMojoMonkey]

ive probably never run my mouth in my life

[ ] Cleverly meta joke
[X] Total lack of awareness of he is perceived

If you type more than a couple of sentences, wuf, you're running your mouth (assuming the metaphor can be extended to text).

I'm fairly sure your "old" WW style was centered around running your mouth, and you have professed as much... or at least begged for forgiveness over any perceived slights due to your "in-game persona."

[OngBonga]

I really don't think internet gobbing off counts. Most of the shit I say in poker chat I wouldn't dare say at the casino.

[spoonitnow]

[ ] Cleverly meta joke
[X] Total lack of awareness of he is perceived

If you type more than a couple of sentences, wuf, you're running your mouth (assuming the metaphor can be extended to text).

I'm fairly sure your "old" WW style was centered around running your mouth, and you have professed as much... or at least begged for forgiveness over any perceived slights due to your "in-game persona."

[x] Has no clue what running your mouth means.

[boost]

I don't fear the SJW's fascist utopia will come to fruition, what worries me is that, despite all the signs pointing to this fact, they're overplaying their hand and continuing to do so at full steam-- this is worrying because the longer they're at it and the more fervent they go about it, the harsher the snap back is going to be.

I'd rather our temporary cultural resting point be somewhere along the lines of "yeah, black people and women have gotten the short end of the stick historically, and we still have a ways to go to really figure out what real(istic) equality really looks like and how we get there" as opposed to every issue touched by SJW's being thought of as trivial and not worth serious consideration.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[x] Has no clue what running your mouth means.

I know what it means, and my statement was directed to wuf.

The fact is that I perceive him as very cool when he's off the cuff. However, he tends to be condescending and preachy when he takes more than a sentence or two to explain himself. Then, if he isn't rewarded for his effort with agreement, he turns to petulance and sarcasm.

In short: he's running his mouth.

This exact attitude will get you clocked by random midwest blue collar types more often than not. They will use the exact argument that "he was running his mouth, so I put him in his place." Well, at least some of them, some of the time.


So maybe there's a difference in regional use, but this is how I've heard it used, and was my intended use.

[wufwugy]

The fact is that I perceive him as very cool when he's off the cuff. However, he tends to be condescending and preachy when he takes more than a sentence or two to explain himself. Then, if he isn't rewarded for his effort with agreement, he turns to petulance and sarcasm.

the times i've done this are when playing werewolf, a didactic game where a priority is to protect yourself and get people to agree with you. you've got me wrong.

[wufwugy]

"running your mouth" is speaking to/about somebody in such a way that you're insulting and challenging them at the same time. it can be explicit or implicit. it's repetitive in such a way that it can be described as berating, and it typically requires doubling or tripling down. a simple example of the least of what it takes to have run your mouth:

guy a: go fuck your mother

guy b: what did you say?

guy a: you heard me. go fuck your mother.

[spoonitnow]

I know what it means, and my statement was directed to wuf.

The fact is that I perceive him as very cool when he's off the cuff. However, he tends to be condescending and preachy when he takes more than a sentence or two to explain himself. Then, if he isn't rewarded for his effort with agreement, he turns to petulance and sarcasm.

In short: he's running his mouth.

This exact attitude will get you clocked by random midwest blue collar types more often than not. They will use the exact argument that "he was running his mouth, so I put him in his place." Well, at least some of them, some of the time.


So maybe there's a difference in regional use, but this is how I've heard it used, and was my intended use.

[x] Still has no clue what running your mouth means.

[spoonitnow]

Have you people seen Kermit's new hot ass fucking girlfriend? I'm so glad he shitcanned that abusive fat whore Miss Piggy and got him a hot, skinny, young piece of ass.

[aubreymcfate]

I don't fear the SJW's fascist utopia will come to fruition, what worries me is that, despite all the signs pointing to this fact, they're overplaying their hand and continuing to do so at full steam-- this is worrying because the longer they're at it and the more fervent they go about it, the harsher the snap back is going to be.

I'd rather our temporary cultural resting point be somewhere along the lines of "yeah, black people and women have gotten the short end of the stick historically, and we still have a ways to go to really figure out what real(istic) equality really looks like and how we get there" as opposed to every issue touched by SJW's being thought of as trivial and not worth serious consideration.

I totally agree, I think that a lot of the backlash towards SJW stuff begins to mirror SJW mentality and attitudes, it becomes similarly kneejerk and reactionary and abandons critical and thoughtful examination. People often become the thing they hate, like militant atheism as a reaction to fundamentalist religion. It's the same "us vs them" dynamic on both sides which is basically the death of any real understanding or learning.

I think it plays a stronger role in our culture than you give it credit for.

[wufwugy]

im wary of the "it's the same on the other side" arguments. ive been on both sides, sometimes it isn't the same. i have come to see the "it's the same on the other side" trope as more of a propaganda tool and defense mechanism of social justice elitism in the first place.

where is this backlash to sjw that is just like sjw lunacy?

[aubreymcfate]

I'm just talking about individuals who begin to mirror the same traits they are against: snap judgment, lack of critical thinking, kneejerk reactions, emotional reactions, us vs. them mentality, etc. Just because it doesn't look exactly the same it doesn't mean it's absolved of any critique. I'm in favor of everyone calmly and rationally and thoughtfully judging things on a case by case basis, and not having a kneejerk reaction simply because it appears to be SJW or appears to be feminist. Many people have a Pavlovian response to the language of ideology from the "opposing" side.

Also, there are certain swaths of MRA types that are just fucking nuts. They are the equivalent to the angry socially inept girls that occupy the really lunatic spots on Tumblr. Angry socially inept dudes on Reddit whose entire philosophy is filtered through their anger at women. It's all the same brand of hysterical rage transmuted into a identity/ideology. (no I'm not saying all MRA dudes are like this, everyone just calm down)

Yes we can quibble about the difference and who is crazier in which spots of the internet or mainstream media, but it still boils down to people getting sucked into ideological "us vs. them" binaries and never being able to think outside of it. We should try and be mindful of the ways our perceptions are conditioned.

Besides you know I wasn't saying it as a means of defending the other side so stfu

[aubreymcfate]

All that being said I do think there's strains of sjw or comparable modes of thought and rhetoric that permeate our public discourse and the state of higher education more than others and it's definitely a real issue. The internet made all this possible btw. McLuhan global village y'all! We weren't made to get along

Unrelated: to those who want book recs I shout from the mountain tops: HARUKI MURAKAMI

I am reading hard boiled wonderland at the end of the world and it is a work of pure genius

this guys brain is a wonderland

[wufwugy]

the internet has made it more pervasive and powerful, but social justice has been a significant mainstay for a long time. social justice is the philosophical root of communism, for example. in this country and more recently, social justice has been very extreme on issues of race for many decades.

also i blame education subsidies far more than the internet. regarding college alone, its dramatic shift towards the ridiculous is emergent from it becoming 13th-16th grade due to subsidies. dont get me started on subsidization of k-12, which is a primary culprit for "you name it" problems we have.

[oskar]

http://the-toast.net/2015/04/01/two-...nt-bestiaries/

[boost]

Yeah, great posts Audrey.

I think it's very important to not treat the individual as a whole. SJW stuff has in many cases become comical, but that's typically the case for any movement that reaches this level of mass appeal. There are very smart people doing very important work that comfortably fit into the SJW label. They're using critical thought to try to solve problems on the societal level-- and, yeah, it might be that their critical thought has lead them down the wrong path, but let's not forget that for every great solution there were countless other people working on alternative, complimentary, and, more importantly and more often than not, conflicting solutions. Out of this environment of competitive problem solving, we've got everything that we have, from pencils to iPhones to special relativity.

Save your disdain for the charlatans and fundamentalist, not the people who, however misguided, are honestly trying to find solutions.

[wufwugy]

im just happy south park is on the case. they're cultural movers for sure. a big part of matt's and trey's success came from satirizing the (social justice) suppression of expression from the xtian right. so it'll be interesting to see how the liberal south park audience handles tasting their own medicine.

[JKDS]

Fuck south park right now. Theyre doing this long, drawn out SJW arc, AND THATS NOT WHAT I SIGNED UP FOR. Make me laugh, not feel hipstery while drinking fraps and going "nice".

[wufwugy]

episodic south park lols are on reserve for the privileged few.

[spoonitnow]

Anyone of the opinion that occasional shootings of 5-10 people are acceptable losses for preserving the second amendment in the United States?

[JKDS]

I don't think that says what people are saying it says. And if you speak to some very, very good lawyers, some would disagree. But many of them agree with me, you're going to find that it doesn't protect that. We have to start a process where we take back this country. Our country is going to hell. We have to take it back.

[wufwugy]

Anyone of the opinion that occasional shootings of 5-10 people are acceptable losses for preserving the second amendment in the United States?

false dilemma

[wufwugy]

I don't think that says what people are saying it says. And if you speak to some very, very good lawyers, some would disagree. But many of them agree with me, you're going to find that it doesn't protect that. We have to start a process where we take back this country. Our country is going to hell. We have to take it back.

what doesnt the 2nd protect?

[wufwugy]

i support the right to bear arms because i believe it more efficiently and effectively creates a more secure and safe environment. i have found that the typical media personnel, who hates firearms, focuses on a small subset of data in order to push an agenda.

[JKDS]

what doesnt the 2nd protect?

We have to bring out country back, Wuf. We're in big trouble. We're losing so much, we're losing so much to so many. We have to bring our country back. We have at least 11 million guns in this country, not only the lives their taking but everything else, and you know about the crime wave, no one knows the crime wave better than you, there is a literal crime wave going on and you know, if you look, we spent a lot of money last year on gun deaths and we have to do something about it.

[wufwugy]

i cant tell if you're serious.

[JKDS]

i cant tell if you're serious.

Look, we're gonna straighten this out, and make America great again. Somethings happening. Something incredible is happening. A guy comes over here, gets a gun, nobody stops anybody, its like we're open territory, and that guy gets a gun and then we have to deal with his problems for 85 years. And I said, "it cant be'. But everybody says "oh no, that guy can buy a gun all he wants". But it turns out im right! Because if you read the language, other than some television scholars who say "oh no, he can buy a gun", people are coming from china, coming from all over asia, theyre coming from latin america, south america, theyre coming from mexico, they walk into gun stores and buy guns. It doesnt read that way. And people say "oh no, you have to go through a whole big thing, so many states with so many referrendums" but it doesnt have to be that way. Because I turned out to be right. We have to get rid of these guns, its disgraceful.

[wufwugy]

ah i get it.

trump's an idiot

[JKDS]

[Renton]

I like gun rights as the ultimate example of placing a high value on freedom in spite of real societal drawbacks. I don't see it as an issue of people needing the ability to defend themselves from an unruly government or criminals or whatever. I just think people should be able to do basically what they want to do and face the consequences that result. Freedom is just really fucking important, even when it's freedom to kill someone. To chop off freedoms at some arbitrary point along the freedom spectrum like at buying assault weapons, cooking napalm, making a dirty bomb or whatever is to open the door to a bunch of other tyrannical nonsense.

As soon as liberals make headway on gun rights, they will have (ahem) ammunition to advance their agendas on every issue that could possibly cause harm to people. As it turns out, a huge shitload of the things humans do on a constant basis have risk of death or serious injury to ourselves and others. Driving is incredibly dangerous. We banned guns so let's ban all fast cars (see Paul Walker's family currently suing Porsche). Or once self-driving cars become a thing, let's ban all human driving. Let's ban unhealthy foods (or at least tax them severely), since people die of heart attacks. Let's ban swimming, since people drown. Or low handrails on balconies, since people fall. As soon as you forge the logical chain of People Getting Hurt = Law Must Exist, we're fucked. In that regard, we're fucked already.

[JKDS]

Ya, we're gonna ban swimming Renton. You caught us. Its point 15 in Bernie Sander's POTUS agenda, and he's got the entire democratic party's support on it.

Also, I hear Trump is pushing a "I want the right to kill people back" platform thats gaining marginal success.

[wufwugy]

I like gun rights as the ultimate example of placing a high value on freedom in spite of real societal drawbacks. I don't see it as an issue of people needing the ability to defend themselves from an unruly government or criminals or whatever. I just think people should be able to do basically what they want to do and face the consequences that result. Freedom is just really fucking important, even when it's freedom to kill someone. To chop off freedoms at some arbitrary point along the freedom spectrum like at buying assault weapons, cooking napalm, making a dirty bomb or whatever is to open the door to a bunch of other tyrannical nonsense.

As soon as liberals make headway on gun rights, they will have (ahem) ammunition to advance their agendas on every issue that could possibly cause harm to people. As it turns out, a huge shitload of the things humans do on a constant basis have risk of death or serious injury to ourselves and others. Driving is incredibly dangerous. We banned guns so let's ban all fast cars (see Paul Walker's family currently suing Porsche). Or once self-driving cars become a thing, let's ban all human driving. Let's ban unhealthy foods (or at least tax them severely), since people die of heart attacks. Let's ban swimming, since people drown. Or low handrails on balconies, since people fall. As soon as you forge the logical chain of People Getting Hurt = Law Must Exist, we're fucked. In that regard, we're fucked already.

good points. i do want to say that gun rights can be viewed as a security booster. who stops people from breaking into homes? the cops? nope, they're too far from the scenes. when people stop home invasion, it's the victims and the neighbors of victims. they stop it by using their eyes, ears, and sometimes weapons (or just threat thereof) so that the perpetrators know the consequences and are deterred by them. eyes and ears are easily the biggest tools for defense (they're what people use to inform law enforcement of the criminal behavior after the fact), but weaponry has a necessary place too.

if it was illegal to harm somebody whom you felt threatened by, i think crime would increase.

[spoonitnow]

false dilemma

It doesn't assume that only one or the other has to happen.

[wufwugy]

Ya, we're gonna ban swimming Renton. You caught us. Its point 15 in Bernie Sander's POTUS agenda, and he's got the entire democratic party's support on it.

he's not wrong. you're not going to ban swimming, and im not going to ban swimming, but we're people who live in a world where we think banning something like swimming is ridiculous. but the causal relationship that gets from here to banning runs much deeper than this time and place. there are countless things that generations long dead would have laughed at as being utterly silly and impossible to enact policy on, yet today they're on the books. policies emerge from movements and movements emerge from culture. a culture that regularly tries to solve problems by banning stuff is a culture whose progeny tries to ban things thought to previously be silly to ban.

[spoonitnow]

Bernie sucks and will get absolutely fucking nothing done ever just like he's never gotten jack shit done in his whole career except get 4chan behind him.

[wufwugy]

It doesn't assume that only one or the other has to happen.

the dilemma i referred to was an implicit one: that mass shootings are caused by the right to bear arms (inferring that a rejection of arms would reduce or eliminate mass shootings). i dont believe that my support for the 2nd is also support for more mass killings.

i'll go on record and say that the idea that mass shootings are caused by the right to bear arms is almost as ridiculous as the idea that oceans cause shark attacks.

[JKDS]

Heres why Gun control is different than that entire rant of whatever. You do what you want with your body. Fine. Live with the consequences of swimming or eating. But you dont have control over what other people do. Sure, we can sue them after. We can throw them in jail. But that doesnt make necromancy suddenly possible. Those kids are gone forever. Those families are broken now, beyond repair. The kids who saw it happen are broken now, beyond repair. These are deaths of kids who will never reach whatever potential they might have had, they will never get to experience life. They will never realize their dreams, nor will they ever fall in love. Theyre gone. Theyre gone because they went to school one day, and instead of a teacher they saw a gun. They werent careless and drowned in a pool, they just went to fucking school.

Its true, I'd rather we lived in a world where the government didnt have to baby us all the damn time. But have you seen the world we currently live in? People arent responsible. The argument is always against the government stepping in, but people havent earned that right. Laws are made in response to events, not products. The first gun control laws were a response to the mafia and the assassination of a President. Its not some conspiracy to take people's guns away. Its mommy stepping in because her children arent responsible enough. You killed a fucking president, go to your room. But we arent getting better. Instead of becoming responsible and actually demonstrating that we can handle owning a gun, there's another damn school shooting.

[JKDS]

he's not wrong. you're not going to ban swimming, and im not going to ban swimming, but we're people who live in a world where we think banning something like swimming is ridiculous. but the causal relationship that gets from here to banning runs much deeper than this time and place. there are countless things that generations long dead would have laughed at as being utterly silly and impossible to enact policy on, yet today they're on the books. policies emerge from movements and movements emerge from culture. a culture that regularly tries to solve problems by banning stuff is a culture whose progeny tries to ban things thought to previously be silly to ban.

Its not wrong, so long as somebody in some point in time may eventually possibly do it?

Swimming and gun control are entirely different things, and legislation regarding either are passed/rejected for entirely different reasons. It'd be like if I said "getting rid of regulation? Next we'll have cockroaches in our food, and die of small pox within a week". Its completely ridiculous.

And its true, some laws are made that are silly. Loads are. But that doesnt mean all laws are silly, and it doesnt mean gun control is either. There is a tool out there that enables someone to eradicate the freedoms of another with relative ease. Yet gun control like making the trigger harder to pull so a 9 year old cant do it is completely off the table.

[wufwugy]

Heres why Gun control is different than that entire rant of whatever. You do what you want with your body. Fine. Live with the consequences of swimming or eating. But you dont have control over what other people do. Sure, we can sue them after. We can throw them in jail. But that doesnt make necromancy suddenly possible. Those kids are gone forever. Those families are broken now, beyond repair. The kids who saw it happen are broken now, beyond repair. These are deaths of kids who will never reach whatever potential they might have had, they will never get to experience life. They will never realize their dreams, nor will they ever fall in love. Theyre gone. Theyre gone because they went to school one day, and instead of a teacher they saw a gun. They werent careless and drowned in a pool, they just went to fucking school.

Its true, I'd rather we lived in a world where the government didnt have to baby us all the damn time. But have you seen the world we currently live in? People arent responsible. The argument is always against the government stepping in, but people havent earned that right. Laws are made in response to events, not products. The first gun control laws were a response to the mafia and the assassination of a President. Its not some conspiracy to take people's guns away. Its mommy stepping in because her children arent responsible enough. You killed a fucking president, go to your room. But we arent getting better. Instead of becoming responsible and actually demonstrating that we can handle owning a gun, there's another damn school shooting.

guns aren't the cause. gun control would do nothing to solve the issue. if the view that guns are the problem and gun control is the solution was accurate, anders breivik wouldn't exist. the fact that anders breivik does exist should be enough for complete dismissal of the rationale from the gun control crowd, as the level of mass killing he created in such a small population with strong gun control is off the charts. statistics can be used to make any case anybody wants, and that's what has happened in the gun control echo chamber.

if im using "gun control social justice" logic, i get to say that the cause of mass shootings is having a democratic president. why else are there "oh so many" mass shootings under the most leftist regime we've had in decades? now the truth is that this claim is wholly specious, but my point is that it's no less specious than what the gun control crowd uses. it's identifying an association and calling it causation.

as to your other point, you lament the irresponsibility of the people then prescribe an even greater reduction of responsibility. i don't think it's a coincidence that mass shootings don't happen in places where the culture is highly in favor taking responsibility for your own safety.

it is absolutely, undeniably true that the thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. the left scoffs at this idea then jams its head in the sand the moment the law (the "good guys with guns") show up. it's not a coincidence that a community college, a place where the good guys with guns are miles away, where the culture is "let somebody else do it", would be the mark for a mass shooting. send this dickhead to a rodeo and he gets off two shots max.

since we're on the topic, why is it that the private university i attend has taken significant security measures (like all locked classroom doors) yet the extent of security the community college i transferred from was a guy who drove a truck around on occasion? isn't the government supposed to protect us? why is a private institution doing a better job?

[JKDS]

Last things

1) We have laws in the US that protect people from other people. Maybe the day will come where we dont need such laws, but today they exist and are in full force. "Freedom" is not the reason to prevent gun control, just like its not the reason to abandon our laws on murder and rape. The argument against this is libertopia.

2) The 2nd amendment doesnt grant full clearance either. I was only half joking when I was trumping around. The 2nd amendment has never been held to be a blank check on gun ownership. The text isnt clear itself, and could be read as to only apply to militias. Regardless, the SCOTUS has found that the right is not unlimited. Its not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. They even upheld gun laws currently in place, like restrictions on felons, school zones, and the sale of firearms. The amendment has also been construed as to only apply to weapons in common use at the time of the amendment (so muskets?). There is also a longstanding historical tradition that bans the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons" as the court put it. SO from an amendment standpoint, gun control works there too.

3) The statistics standpoint. This seems like just a crock of shit to me. Both sides seem to be bullshitting here, because the answer shouldnt be disputable. Does gun control impact crime, yes/no/idk? Both sides say it does, but come to a different impact. This isnt like global warming though where its only the 1% of dropout scientists that disagree. I'd like laws that stop the deaths of children, so if this information isnt reliable then I think "children's lives matter" wins.

[JKDS]

guns aren't the cause. gun control would do nothing to solve the issue. if the view that guns are the problem and gun control is the solution was accurate, anders breivik wouldn't exist. the fact that anders breivik does exist should be enough for complete dismissal of the rationale from the gun control crowd, as the level of mass killing he created in such a small population with strong gun control is off the charts. statistics can be used to make any case anybody wants, and that's what has happened in the gun control echo chamber.

This doesnt defeat gun control in any way, shape, or form. The only way it would is if you believe gun control is meant to eradicate crime. Its not. Its meant to decrease crime.

if im using "gun control social justice" logic, i get to say that the cause of mass shootings is having a democratic president. why else are there "oh so many" mass shootings under the most leftist regime we've had in decades? now the truth is that this claim is wholly specious, but my point is that it's no less specious than what the gun control crowd uses. it's identifying an association and calling it causation.

Im not sure what correlation you're referring to here. If you mean things like "Norway has gun control, and less murders" than sure. But school shootings are pretty clearly caused by guns, and technology exists which would make children unable to use them.

as to your other point, you lament the irresponsibility of the people then prescribe an even greater reduction of responsibility. i don't think it's a coincidence that mass shootings don't happen in places where the culture is highly in favor taking responsibility for your own safety.

Perhaps. I dont know of a way to force millions of Americans to suddenly be mature though, and doing nothing instead is baffling to me.

it is absolutely, undeniably true that the thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Police officers undergo a ton of gun control tho. Not only that, but reports of "police brutality" and "complaints against police officers" both dropped substantially when even more control was implemented.

it's not a coincidence that a community college, a place where the good guys with guns are miles away, where the culture is "let somebody else do it", would be the mark for a mass shooting. send this dickhead to a rodeo and he gets off two shots max.

The failure of a city to maintain an efficient police force does not mean gun control is wrong. As for your rodeo idea, I can be cute and say an automatic weapon would get off a lot more than 2 shots. But I can be cuter and say that gun control is the reason they have any chance to retaliate at all. They were lucky the assailant was prevented from buying rocket launchers or sniper rifles.

since we're on the topic, why is it that the private university i attend has taken significant security measures (like all locked classroom doors) yet the extent of security the community college i transferred from was a guy who drove a truck around on occasion? isn't the government supposed to protect us? why is a private institution doing a better job?

No no no, you misunderstand. The goverment provides that minimum base level of security, but you're certainly free to make yourselves more secure.

[wufwugy]

Yet gun control like making the trigger harder to pull so a 9 year old cant do it is completely off the table.

as it should be. the cost of doing this is >0, which gets to the principle of how much value is reasonable to force an entity to put on a life. but even worse, the unintended consequences of this could arguably create even more deaths, as well as it's social engineering at its finest. the social engineering of it is if you wanna start eradicating guns from peoples' lives, one of the best ways to do it would be to sneak in laws that disincentivize involvement of children with their parents. many gun enthusiasts shot their first firearm at around age 10 or below.

the unintended consequences of a law like this would be huge. it would increase irresponsibility by parents ("naw just leave the gun on the counter, little billy is too weak to pull the trigger, da gubmint made sure of it"). it would increase irresponsibility by handlers ("naw bro didn't you hear, triggers are tough to pull now so no more need for trigger discipline"). as is pretty much always the case when the government passes laws like this, we'd create even more problems than what we solve.

[MadMojoMonkey]

More freedom, less utopianism.

The notion that a murderer is confined by the tool in his hand is ludicrous to me. There were murders and mass killings before guns. There will still be murderous assholes, some of whom have the determination to find or make a killing device, even if there are no more gun manufacturers.

No amount of regulation is going to change human nature.

Humanity is far more complex than the way the issue of gun control frames us. We are a vicious, violent species from time to time. No matter how pleasant life can be in between, there is much reason to believe that there will be terrible times again. Genocide is still a thing humans are doing. When the common people don't have commensurate weaponry, the results are too stunning to describe. The promise that it wont happen here, never ever, is not compelling. Even if I am persuaded to trust that my gov't will never be corrupted, I cannot be persuaded to believe that gov't is all powerful against invasion.


In short: a few mass shootings at schools is a mighty price to pay, but in this case, it's well worth it.

The argument that anyone has a right to live a life without coming face to face with death is ridiculous entitlement. If you have not had to face terrible humanity, then count yourself as lucky. Your experience is not the whole story.

[JKDS]

as it should be. the cost of doing this is >0, which gets to the principle of how much value is reasonable to force an entity to put on a life .

So what? You act like this is the only regulation to ever increase the safety of people at a cost. Two "wrongs" dont make a right, but when my car has to pass emissions every 2 years...I dont really care if my gun cost goes up $20.

but even worse, the unintended consequences of this could arguably create even more deaths, as well as it's social engineering at its finest. the social engineering of it is if you wanna start eradicating guns from peoples' lives, one of the best ways to do it would be to sneak in laws that disincentivize involvement of children with their parents. many gun enthusiasts shot their first firearm at around age 10 or below

the unintended consequences of a law like this would be huge. it would increase irresponsibility by parents ("naw just leave the gun on the counter, little billy is too weak to pull the trigger, da gubmint made sure of it"). it would increase irresponsibility by handlers ("naw bro didn't you hear, triggers are tough to pull now so no more need for trigger discipline"). as is pretty much always the case when the government passes laws like this, we'd create even more problems than what we solve.

I can speculate too. We do nothing, and school shootings become so common place that nobody bats an eye anymore. We teach children that shooters are rewarded with fame and live on forever, and its really not such a big deal that your best friend died anyway. Youll make a new one.

"The Future Is Scary" is not a real argument.

[JKDS]

More freedom, less utopianism.

The notion that a murderer is confined by the tool in his hand is ludicrous to me. There were murders and mass killings before guns. There will still be murderous assholes, some of whom have the determination to find or make a killing device, even if there are no more gun manufacturers.

No amount of regulation is going to change human nature.

You dont seriously believe that children are capable of the same scale of tragedies w/o guns. You know quite well that guns are the only reason mass school deaths by children are even possible. Ok, bombs and plagues and such too, but those are controlled as well. There is no child capable of killing his entire class by arming himself with a knife or spear.

Humanity is far more complex than the way the issue of gun control frames us. We are a vicious, violent species from time to time. No matter how pleasant life can be in between, there is much reason to believe that there will be terrible times again. Genocide is still a thing humans are doing. When the common people don't have commensurate weaponry, the results are too stunning to describe. The promise that it wont happen here, never ever, is not compelling. Even if I am persuaded to trust that my gov't will never be corrupted, I cannot be persuaded to believe that gov't is all powerful against invasion.

And you are not naive enough to believe any person and their gun stands any chance against an army. It is not the 1700s. We dont fight in militias anymore, and a single drone is all it takes to wipe you off the map before you can even load your whatever. Maybe the people currently undergoing genocide would be better off with guns, but their fight is different than whatever fight Americans will face.

In short: a few mass shootings at schools is a mighty price to pay, but in this case, it's well worth it.

The argument that anyone has a right to live a life without coming face to face with death is ridiculous entitlement. If you have not had to face terrible humanity, then count yourself as lucky. Your experience is not the whole story.

I have a constitutional right to life. Thats not entitlement.

[wufwugy]

Last things

1) We have laws in the US that protect people from other people. Maybe the day will come where we dont need such laws, but today they exist and are in full force. "Freedom" is not the reason to prevent gun control, just like its not the reason to abandon our laws on murder and rape. The argument against this is libertopia.

The "wrong" that is murder and rape is nothing at all like the "wrong" of owning firearms.

Besides, freedom is usually a good enough reason for things. It's why we're here today and have what we have, after all.

The text isnt clear itself, and could be read as to only apply to militias.

It takes a convoluted reading to say that the right to bear arms is dependent upon being in a militia. The militia part is the qualifier for why the right exists, but the right itself is to bear arms. It's not to bear arms if in a militia or if a militia is needed. It's to bear arms, full stop.

Regardless, the SCOTUS has found that the right is not unlimited. Its not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. They even upheld gun laws currently in place, like restrictions on felons, school zones, and the sale of firearms. The amendment has also been construed as to only apply to weapons in common use at the time of the amendment (so muskets?). There is also a longstanding historical tradition that bans the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons" as the court put it. SO from an amendment standpoint, gun control works there too.

I agree in principle. That said, SCOTUS loves doing the wrong thing (I'm not saying they're wrong here, I have no opinion on it). It can be said its decisions emerge more from the need for maintenance of legitimacy than from unconditional adherence to the constitution.

This doesnt defeat gun control in any way, shape, or form. The only way it would is if you believe gun control is meant to eradicate crime. Its not. Its meant to decrease crime.

2011 was the year that a gun control regime far outperformed a less-than-that-gun-control regime when it comes to mass shooting deaths per capita. My point isn't that this helps my point, but that it's an example of the specious use of statistics the gun control crowd uses. Where are all the gun control proponents saying that it clearly doesn't work since this tiny population of gun-controlled Norwegians had a HUGE mass shooting?

Im not sure what correlation you're referring to here. If you mean things like "Norway has gun control, and less murders" than sure. But school shootings are pretty clearly caused by guns, and technology exists which would make children unable to use them.

Mass killilngs are not caused by guns; they are often associated with guns. We don't know most of the causes of mass killings. If we use the logic that guns cause mass killings, we must also use the logic that guns stop them. Besides, gun control typically just removes them from lawful citizens, not criminals.

Perhaps. I dont know of a way to force millions of Americans to suddenly be mature though, and doing nothing instead is baffling to me.

It's not gun enthusiasts that scare me. The last place I want to be is in a room full of gun control proponents and a firearm sitting on the table. Half of them wouldn't even know how to pick it up without accidental discharge. Even then, killers are not killers because they lack maturity.

There's no "doing nothing" here. Gun enthusiasts typically do more for safety issues than gun control advocates. I'll be clear in saying that I think gun control (outside of extreme stuff) would just make things less safe. I think it already has. The last thing I want to see is the government be given more responsibility for safety, because its track record of not handling that power well is so clear.

Police officers undergo a ton of gun control tho. Not only that, but reports of "police brutality" and "complaints against police officers" both dropped substantially when even more control was implemented.

I'm not sure what you mean by the gun control undergone. Besides, I'm not sure I think it's that great an improvement for a regime that causes way way way way too much suffering to be hailed as a success when one of those "way's" is removed.

The failure of a city to maintain an efficient police force does not mean gun control is wrong. As for your rodeo idea, I can be cute and say an automatic weapon would get off a lot more than 2 shots. But I can be cuter and say that gun control is the reason they have any chance to retaliate at all. They were lucky the assailant was prevented from buying rocket launchers or sniper rifles.

I don't take much issue with this. When I argue against gun control, I inadvertently do not even consider the most destructive among them as a part of the debate. That said, a rocket launcher isn't a gun, and I haven't seen much evidence that assault rifles are more productive for mass killings than handguns.

No no no, you misunderstand. The goverment provides that minimum base level of security, but you're certainly free to make yourselves more secure.

Well, the government is pretty bad at it, then. It's terrible at stopping crime. In fact, it's great at creating crime.

Regardless, how does a regulation on trigger tension qualify as "minimum base level of security"?

So what? You act like this is the only regulation to ever increase the safety of people at a cost. Two "wrongs" dont make a right, but when my car has to pass emissions every 2 years...I dont really care if my gun cost goes up $20.

Well, you're saying that you know what the cost of a life is and that the government can reasonably implement regulation to enact this. I'm saying that isn't necessarily the case and also we don't use this sort of logic for most other things. Take vehicular collisions for example. Millions of lives could be saved (other peoples' lives taken from them against their direct choice) by reducing the speed limit to 25 miles per hour. Since I always try to look at things like an economist does, I'll go there: at what cost and who should be the authority to determine that? I'd like it if the government could be a positive here, but history isn't on its side.

I can speculate too. We do nothing, and school shootings become so common place that nobody bats an eye anymore. We teach children that shooters are rewarded with fame and live on forever, and its really not such a big deal that your best friend died anyway. Youll make a new one.

"The Future Is Scary" is not a real argument.

I get it. I think it's ridiculous. But how does this mean the problem is guns? There is a far, far better explanation that the problem is the media that glorifies the killers. And an even bigger cause in how the populace at large slurps it up as entertainment. Guns are a scapegoat.